Yeah I tried something similar once. There was a path that I was planning on using ST a lot on and it was only a few energy to my first fight. I thought I'd just keep starting over until I got 5 or 6 charges. About 100 energy later I got a 5. A majority of the rolls we're 3. I'm guessing 3 and 4 are more likely to drop than a 6.

My experience with ST is strikingly similar. It’s also the reason why I actually regret taking him to r4. Though I definitely don’t regret taking Cap IW to r5, I’ve noticed that his S2 now rarely if ever crits in AW, but crits all the damn time when I couldn’t care less, like in arena fights. There are so many more examples. It’s borderline depressing. To quote good old Albert; if it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck at all. Except, I don’t think he wrote that in the age of algorithms.

In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.

Yes, technically speaking the description is absolutely correct. But without any more information, I would say that we are more inclined to think that ST would have an equal chance of landing on 3,4,5 or 6. Again, technically correct description but heavily lacks information and nuance.

In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.

Yes, technically speaking the description is absolutely correct. But without any more information, I would say that we are more inclined to think that ST would have an equal chance of landing on 3,4,5 or 6. Again, technically correct description but heavily lacks information and nuance.

Yeah, I wish they would put the roll percentages in the info... like you said, as it's worded, it's not technically wrong.

If there are hard percentages coded in, based on my rolls, I would say they are:

This is one of my biggest complaints with Kabam; they always seem to work against the players. Why can’t they do stuff in our favor? I understand that it’s all financially motivated but damn, just make the freak’n persistent charges equal. How petty. This is one reason I didn’t r4 ST. I rolled 3 way too much.

You actually beat me to it OP. I was about to test the exact same thing over the weekend to see if I would r5 my ST.
I just like how we plays, and together with Void/KM he can make hell of a team.

@Kabam Miike or any other mod: As you guys are working to improve some descriptions in the game (i.e. descriptions for the Courage and Assassin mastery), can you also please address this to the team? Or maybe get in contact with the devs to check with them and report the percentages over here? Would appreciate any feedback!

I appreciate the data and effort @Hamin
The results are very similar to what I've experienced. I would like to see a comment from Kabam on this subject, but I don't imagine we'll get one.

To all those who are hesitant to rank up Sabretooth, I wouldn't worry much about this. Even at 3 charges, he's strong enough to tear through even the hardest content. Mine was my 2nd rank 5 and I've had zero regrets. He was my go-to for a lot of the Champion content starting a few months back. Sabretooth tears through the Champion and I'm now the designated AW boss killer whenever Champion is there. I never have to worry about Iceman that many are complaining about in the Trials right now. Plus, even starting from scratch, he can solo LOL Rulk. The guy is a beast no matter how many persistent charges you have.

To be fair, the description simply says charges are distributed “randomly.” It doesn’t say each value has an equal chance. One would think that’s what it means, but who knows?

The game team should expect more threads like this the more the game hinges on pRNG results for basic gameplay (random buffs, random charges, buff/node interactions, etc.). Here’s to hoping we get something other than a version of “who are you going to believe, Kabam or your lying eyes?”

To be fair, the description simply says charges are distributed “randomly.” It doesn’t say each value has an equal chance. One would think that’s what it means, but who knows?

The game team should expect more threads like this the more the game hinges on pRNG results for basic gameplay (random buffs, random charges, buff/node interactions, etc.). Here’s to hoping we get something other than a version of “who are you going to believe, Kabam or your lying eyes?”

Dr. Zola

I'm sorry, but if understanding basic in-game descriptions, now requires a course in advanced semantics, I think something is a little off. I take it that most people would interpret 'random' as 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring. If the odds per occurrence vary, that wouldn't be in line with the connotation of the word 'random'. By the same token, when, for instance, an online poker room claims they use an RNG, I expect they refer to a random number generator. Not some version that has been tinkered with. There are even regulatory bodies that validate the 'randomness' of RNG's. If I may interpret the 'R' in that term to mean 'random' as in 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring' (which it does), I take it the same should apply here.

I'm sorry, but if understanding basic in-game descriptions, now requires a course in advanced semantics, I think something is a little off. I take it that most people would interpret 'random' as 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring. If the odds per occurrence vary, that wouldn't be in line with the connotation of the word 'random'. By the same token, when, for instance, an online poker room claims they use an RNG, I expect they refer to a random number generator. Not some version that has been tinkered with. There are even regulatory bodies that validate the 'randomness' of RNG's. If I may interpret the 'R' in that term to mean 'random' as in 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring' (which it does), I take it the same should apply here.

Kabam addressing this topic would be good for MCOC. Lack of transparency can lead to things like how Belgium responded to EA’s video game currency.

I'm sorry, but if understanding basic in-game descriptions, now requires a course in advanced semantics, I think something is a little off. I take it that most people would interpret 'random' as 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring. If the odds per occurrence vary, that wouldn't be in line with the connotation of the word 'random'. By the same token, when, for instance, an online poker room claims they use an RNG, I expect they refer to a random number generator. Not some version that has been tinkered with. There are even regulatory bodies that validate the 'randomness' of RNG's. If I may interpret the 'R' in that term to mean 'random' as in 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring' (which it does), I take it the same should apply here.

Kabam addressing this topic would be good for MCOC. Lack of transparency can lead to things like how Belgium responded to EA’s video game currency.

It would be good for the game if they even announced a real effort to tie up these kinds of loose ends. Addressing masteries that may or may not be broken (or misleading according to common usage of English), tightening up character ability descriptions, verifying that RNG dependent activities absolutely fall along stated parameters. Someone with some actual pull attaching their name to a statement would go a long way.

I have no idea why the original poster is behind bars, but I sure hope it doesn’t have anything to do with this post. He did what Dorkey Dave did. Test things and report results. It’s what should be encouraged not punished.

If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.

That doesn't describe a method. A % by definition describes a fraction, or in this case, a probability of some random act occurring. Not a selection method.

If you roll 2 dice you have a greater chance of rolling 7 than you do 12. You wouldn't say the dice were rigged would you? Of course not. There are just different probabilities for different random events to occur.

However, I agree it seems that some more transparency in the description is warranted. There is nothing that says all outcomes are equal but nothings that says they aren't so it's pretty ambiguous.

I was reading that Online Casinos, and mobile gambling games have an outside certification process for RNG like Technical Systems Testing (TST), that go to great lengths to check that the Algorithm used in there application is legit. So Im wonder if there are other certifications for games such as MCOC, that test a true RNG.

In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.

Yes, technically speaking the description is absolutely correct. But without any more information, I would say that we are more inclined to think that ST would have an equal chance of landing on 3,4,5 or 6. Again, technically correct description but heavily lacks information and nuance.

Yeah, I wish they would put the roll percentages in the info... like you said, as it's worded, it's not technically wrong.

If there are hard percentages coded in, based on my rolls, I would say they are:

3 - 50%
4 - 30%
5 - 15%
6 - 5%

Interesting experiment. It does roughly agree with my observations, insofar as three and four come up overwhelmingly often in my experience. If I had to take a guess at what the percentages actually are, I would guess: 50% / 33% / 12% / 5%, but your guess is also within the margins of error. In my experience game developers tend to like round numbers and simple fractions, so I'm guessing someone might have been thinking that 3 should come up half the time, 4 about one third the time, and 5 and 6 split the remaining seventeen percentage points roughly two to one, and 6 landing on five percentage points.

If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.

False. Craps, for example, presumes random dice rolls but not every number has an equal chance of occurring because the combination of two dies generates a non-equal distribution. Two and Twelve only come up once every thirty six rolls on average while seven comes up six times more often.

Also important to note that dictionaries are not the arbiter of the meanings of words, by their own mission statement. They document how words are used, they do not mandate how words must be used. The word "random" is used in a lot of contexts; in colloquial speech it might sometimes mean what you quote above, but when it comes to random number generation in computer systems that definition is entirely wrong.

I'm sorry, but if understanding basic in-game descriptions, now requires a course in advanced semantics, I think something is a little off. I take it that most people would interpret 'random' as 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring.

Then most people would be wrong. But most people don't actually believe this unless it is convenient to believe. Randomness and equal distribution are orthogonal ideas. People colloquially describe things as random that are most definitely not equally distributed. Usually, the colloquial meaning of "random" is "unpredictable" not "all possibilities equally likely." Someone might say the weather in sixty days will be is random, but no one who says that believes that all weather possibilities are equally likely.